Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Ravinder Singh Gandoak – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
W.P. (CRL) 317/2023 | CRL.M.A. 2928/2023
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.482, S.311, S.311A, S.173
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: S.73
Indian Penal Code, 1860: S.420, S.468, S.471, S.120B
Headnote
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Proviso - Function is to qualify or except - Rule of harmonious construction - When a literal construction leads to absurd results, the court may look to the purpose of the legislation - The mischief rule requires the court to interpret provisions in a manner that achieves the legislative goal, which here is the facilitation of forensic investigation for crime detection. (Paras 56, 57, 64)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order directing the submission of specimen signatures and handwriting for forensic examination during an ongoing criminal investigation. The challenge was predicated on the ground that the petitioner had not been formally arrested, and therefore, under the proviso to the relevant statutory provision, the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to compel the production of such samples. The respondent argued that the statutory provision must be interpreted to allow for effective investigation and that the petitioner was already on court bail, thereby satisfying any arrest-related conditions.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the section governing the direction to provide specimen signatures provides a necessary tool for investigators. It ruled that the proviso must be read harmoniously so as not to render the main provision otiose. The court concluded that interpreting the arrest requirement as an absolute condition precedent for any person would lead to absurd consequences, and that the person's status as an accused on bail sufficiently fulfills the legal requirement for such an order.
Issues: Whether the magistrate has the authority to order an individual to provide specimen signatures or handwriting under the relevant criminal provision if the individual has not been formally arrested, and whether the proviso acts as an absolute bar in such circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to the relevant section regarding the specimen handwriting must be interpreted harmoniously. It serves to qualify the power regarding the accused only, and the statutory intent was to remove the pre-existing judicial anomaly, thus granting courts the power to order such samples to aid investigation, provided the process does not lead to absurd interpretations that impede the administration of justice.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rebecca M John, Vinayak Bhandari, Jaisal Singh, Pravir
For the Respondents: Sanjeev Bhandari, Arjit Sharma, Sakshi Jha, Tanvir Ahmed Mir, Rajat Asija, Mansi Singh
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history of forgery investigation and litigation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 2. contentions regarding section 311a statutory interpretation and arrest (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 3. magistrate's power to compel handwriting under section 311a (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 4. dismissal of petition and compliance mandate (Para 70 , 71) |
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. A Petition under Article 226/227 Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner Ravinder Singh Gandoak to challenge the Order dated 19.01.2023 whereby the learned M.M has allowed the Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the Respondent No.2 to take the handwriting samples of Ravinder Gandoak, Deepali Gandoak and Praveet Gandoak.
2. Briefly stated, a Complaint against the Respondent No.2, son of Late S. Surinder Kaur Sodhi was filed in regard to his illegal acts with respect to the premises bearing No.210A, Golf Links, New Delhi on which FIR No.0149/2014 was registered. The Chargesheet was filed after due investigations.
3. During the investigations, an Application was filed by the I.O under Section 311A Cr.P.C seeking directions to the Accused persons namely Amita Gandoak, Ravinder Singh Gandoak, Praveet Gandoak and Deepali Gandoak all residents of M-77, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, to provide their specimen signatures and handwriting samples, for the purpose of investigation.
4. The Application was contested by Amita Gandoak, Ravinder Gandoak, Deepali Gandoak and Praveet Gandoak who filed their detailed reply.
5. The learned M.M. after due consideration, allowed the Application and directed that in order to ensure fair investigations, specimen signatures and handwriting be provided by Ravinder Gandoak, Deepali Gandoak and Praveet Gandoak, for which they shall appear in the Court on 03.02.2023. No handwriting/signatures of Amit Gandoak were directed to be taken since it had already been obtained for which opinion had also been obtained from FSL.
6. Aggrieved by the said Order of learned M.M dated 19.01.2023, the present Petition has been filed.
7. The grounds of challenge of the impugned Order are that the Petitioner was never arrested in the present case and in fact, the Chargesheet has been filed by putting him in Column No.12, on account of insufficient evidence.
8. The Petitioner’s wife had moved an Application before the concerned Magistrate seeking monitoring of investigations as the I.O was doing unfair investigations and was causing harassment to the Petitioner and his family members.
9. The Investigating Officer, Nikhil Raman, has been suspended by the Police on corruption charges, which corroborate the Petitioner’s fears that the entire investigation has been conducted in an unfair and mala fide manner.
10. It has not been appreciated by the learned M.M that the Application for seeking specimen handwriting and signatures, was to counter the monitoring Application filed by Amita Gandoak. The Investigation is the sole prerogative of the Investigating Agency and the Courts cannot direct the Investigating Officer, to investigate the case in a particular manner.
11. Further, despite the direction of this Court that the Investigating Officer must investigate uninfluenced by the observations of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s Order directing further investigations, the Trial Court recorded the submissions of the Complainant with respect to the directions passed in further Investigation Order. Thorough investigations had been conducted for almost five years and thereafter, the Charge-Sheet was filed in the Court against the wife of the Petitioner.
12. However, on the Application of the Respondent No. 2/Complaina
